Grow Back Better Social and ecological factors
Description: Grow Back Better Social and ecological factors shaping wildfire recovery on non-industrial private lands Naomi Serio Dr. Heidi Huber-Stearns, Ecosystem Workforce Program University of Oregon Background Context The Labor Day fires
Related Topics
Download Presentation
"Grow Back Better Social and ecological factors" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
slide1. Grow Back Better Social and ecological factors shaping wildfire recovery on non-industrial private lands Naomi Serio & Dr. Heidi Huber-Stearns, Ecosystem Workforce Program University of Oregon<br>
slide2. Background & Context The Labor Day fires claimed ten lives, burned an estimated 4,000 square kilometers of forest and woodland, and destroyed over 4,000 homes.
Wildfire-burned areas are forecasted to increase by an estimated 400% by 2040.
Long-term recovery case study basins: McKenzie, Umpqua, and North Santiam
Focus on non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners
Make up about 12% of the forestlands burned in 2020 fires
Importance consideration when managing for climate resiliency at the landscape scale.<br>
slide3. Research Questions Central research question: How does the intersection of individuals, their land, and the local institutional context of recovery support shape emergent social and ecological resilience to wildfire at the landscape level?<br>
slide4. To understand the social landscape of recovery, we are conducting semi-structed interviews with organizations involved in long-term recovery in our case studies
Focusing on organizations supporting NIPF landowners (23 interviewees)
Identified through snowball sampling and membership in the Western Oregon Cascades Recovery Effort (WOCRE)
Interview questions focus on:
Organization’s role in supporting NIPF recovery
Ecological, social, and policy-based (red tape) challenges to supporting and engaging NIPF
Understanding who is receiving support and how to make support more accessible Today’s focus: organizations supporting NIPF<br>
slide5. Preliminary emergent themes<br>
slide6. What type of support is available? Funding: Most funding to help landowners with post-fire land management is coming from federal sources, such as the NRCS and the FSA, but also some state funding (OWEB).
Technical support: ODF, OSU extension, SWCDs, watershed councils
Outreach: Long-term recovery groups, non-profits, counties
Most programs are cost-shares and are reimbursement based
Programs cover activities such as brush removal, riparian restoration, site assessments, site prep, and replanting.<br>
slide7. Ecological challenges to reforesting private lands Tree mortality is high: heat waves, drought, poor seedling quality
Seedling supply: Very few nurseries will sell to the public in small orders
Some organizations are helping landowners aggregate orders
Lack of science on post-fire reforestation best practices on non-industrial private lands west of the Cascades
Brush build up: need for constant mitigation<br>
slide8. Social and economic challenges to reforesting private lands Cumbersome application processes
“They’re so overwhelmed with the 15th set of paperwork we’re having them complete answering the same questions in a slightly different way for a new agency. They’ve given up, they can’t move past the trauma because we’re reinflicting it on them every time we get a new program with new funding.”
Needing to front funding and uncertainty around reimbursement timeline
Distrust of government and hesitance to receive assistance
“The second we tell people that we need to do an environmental study on their property, people panic… they’re afraid of what that means.”<br>
slide9. “Some of the people that have replanted have lost as much as 80% of the trees… I don’t know about you but if somebody was like, hey, I need you to put out $35,000 to replant these trees that have already died twice and I can’t guarantee that I’m going to be able to reimburse you or how long it’s going to take, there’s a good chance they’re not going to do it.”<br>
slide10. Equity Concerns in Recovery Reforestation can only be a priority after housing, food, etc. is secure
“The folks who have time and money can look into it [getting support] and maybe call a consultant or those sorts of things. The folks who don’t have these resources, they’re struggling to figure out how they’re going to get clothes. I think there’s some knowledge of it [support], but it’s not equitable…. again it goes back to if you’re trying to figure out how to get clothes on your back, you don’t care about the trees on your property… it starts with making sure they [landowners] have access to everything else so that it [replanting] can become a priority.”
Groups having trouble accessing land management support: individuals still struggling to get basic needs met, middle income, elderly, very rural, families with children<br>
slide11. Local organizations with pre-existing relationships should be the ones directly working with survivors
Have systems in place ahead of time to get the LTRGs running right after the fire
Long-term recovery is longer than funders and policymakers realize.
Look to pre-existing models in other states and communities
“Why not lean on other states that have done this? California has been dealing with this, they’re ten years ahead of us in wildfires.” Recommendations<br>
slide12. To get in contact with our research team:
Heidi Huber-Stearns, Director of the Ecosystem Workforce, hhuber@uoregon.edu
Naomi Serio, Faculty Researcher, nserio@uoregon.edu<br>
slide2. Background & Context The Labor Day fires claimed ten lives, burned an estimated 4,000 square kilometers of forest and woodland, and destroyed over 4,000 homes.
Wildfire-burned areas are forecasted to increase by an estimated 400% by 2040.
Long-term recovery case study basins: McKenzie, Umpqua, and North Santiam
Focus on non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners
Make up about 12% of the forestlands burned in 2020 fires
Importance consideration when managing for climate resiliency at the landscape scale.<br>
slide3. Research Questions Central research question: How does the intersection of individuals, their land, and the local institutional context of recovery support shape emergent social and ecological resilience to wildfire at the landscape level?<br>
slide4. To understand the social landscape of recovery, we are conducting semi-structed interviews with organizations involved in long-term recovery in our case studies
Focusing on organizations supporting NIPF landowners (23 interviewees)
Identified through snowball sampling and membership in the Western Oregon Cascades Recovery Effort (WOCRE)
Interview questions focus on:
Organization’s role in supporting NIPF recovery
Ecological, social, and policy-based (red tape) challenges to supporting and engaging NIPF
Understanding who is receiving support and how to make support more accessible Today’s focus: organizations supporting NIPF<br>
slide5. Preliminary emergent themes<br>
slide6. What type of support is available? Funding: Most funding to help landowners with post-fire land management is coming from federal sources, such as the NRCS and the FSA, but also some state funding (OWEB).
Technical support: ODF, OSU extension, SWCDs, watershed councils
Outreach: Long-term recovery groups, non-profits, counties
Most programs are cost-shares and are reimbursement based
Programs cover activities such as brush removal, riparian restoration, site assessments, site prep, and replanting.<br>
slide7. Ecological challenges to reforesting private lands Tree mortality is high: heat waves, drought, poor seedling quality
Seedling supply: Very few nurseries will sell to the public in small orders
Some organizations are helping landowners aggregate orders
Lack of science on post-fire reforestation best practices on non-industrial private lands west of the Cascades
Brush build up: need for constant mitigation<br>
slide8. Social and economic challenges to reforesting private lands Cumbersome application processes
“They’re so overwhelmed with the 15th set of paperwork we’re having them complete answering the same questions in a slightly different way for a new agency. They’ve given up, they can’t move past the trauma because we’re reinflicting it on them every time we get a new program with new funding.”
Needing to front funding and uncertainty around reimbursement timeline
Distrust of government and hesitance to receive assistance
“The second we tell people that we need to do an environmental study on their property, people panic… they’re afraid of what that means.”<br>
slide9. “Some of the people that have replanted have lost as much as 80% of the trees… I don’t know about you but if somebody was like, hey, I need you to put out $35,000 to replant these trees that have already died twice and I can’t guarantee that I’m going to be able to reimburse you or how long it’s going to take, there’s a good chance they’re not going to do it.”<br>
slide10. Equity Concerns in Recovery Reforestation can only be a priority after housing, food, etc. is secure
“The folks who have time and money can look into it [getting support] and maybe call a consultant or those sorts of things. The folks who don’t have these resources, they’re struggling to figure out how they’re going to get clothes. I think there’s some knowledge of it [support], but it’s not equitable…. again it goes back to if you’re trying to figure out how to get clothes on your back, you don’t care about the trees on your property… it starts with making sure they [landowners] have access to everything else so that it [replanting] can become a priority.”
Groups having trouble accessing land management support: individuals still struggling to get basic needs met, middle income, elderly, very rural, families with children<br>
slide11. Local organizations with pre-existing relationships should be the ones directly working with survivors
Have systems in place ahead of time to get the LTRGs running right after the fire
Long-term recovery is longer than funders and policymakers realize.
Look to pre-existing models in other states and communities
“Why not lean on other states that have done this? California has been dealing with this, they’re ten years ahead of us in wildfires.” Recommendations<br>
slide12. To get in contact with our research team:
Heidi Huber-Stearns, Director of the Ecosystem Workforce, hhuber@uoregon.edu
Naomi Serio, Faculty Researcher, nserio@uoregon.edu<br>